Will there ever be a "perfect" system of government...

College Confidential Community
21

<p>"Anarchy is to extreme.People aren't smart, rational, or disciplined enough to coexist peacefully now, how could it possibly get better with no checks and balances in place?"</p>

<p>If people aren't smart, rational, or disciplined enough to coexist peacefully, then that is not an argument for government. Under your assumption, government is made up of the same dumb, irrational, and undisciplined people. You would have to have a government of perfect people in order to achiver better things.</p>

<p>NOTE: I don't believe people are irrational or dumb. Most people are rational and have the right sense of morality, but this sense of truth is corrupted when they try to reconcile these senses with what others have taught them (e.g. stealing is okay if the person being stolen from is richer than you).</p>

<p>We can take "perfect" to mean 2 different things. The way the OP phrased the question, he is talking about a system with no problems whatsoever. This is not possible. The other meaning of "perfect" can be the best possible system achievable. For example, right now we might say that diamonds are the "perfect" hard material (they are the hardest achievable yet can still be cut by lasers).</p>

22

<p>Now not all people are dumb and irrational, but enough are to make the world an unpleasant place (i.e wars, famine).And even then my original statement can be an argument for government.Here's why: There are checks and balances in place to make sure(based on majority vote) that alot of the irrational ideas that aren't in the best interest of the country aren't made(at least in the United States). It doesn't always work but this system is much better than one without checks and balances(anarchy). For instance, the credit crisis is a result of firms and people making irrational, dumb decisions, as well as being undisciplined. Because it has happened once(like many things in history), it isn't bound to happen again because checks and balances will be put in place to remedy the situation. In an anarchy, these sort of instances would be the way of life because there would be no way to enforce right or wrong. Also there wouldn't be a clear cut definition of what right or wrong is because it is ambiguous and relative as it applies to different people.</p>

23

<p>
[quote]
"Now not all people are dumb and irrational, but enough are to make the world an unpleasant place (i.e wars, famine)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Once again, the underlying assumption of this is that the government is not full of self-serving irrational people. No matter how complex and careful your checks are, they mean nothing if men is inherently irrational; the checks will always be pushed aside.</p>

<p>A majority vote does not approximate rationality in any sense. Rationality would be not deliberately inflating currencies, stealing from people based on their wealth, and killing people (death penalties). Furthermore, there are two other problems with majority rule: one is that the best solution to the problem can never be known without a price system as feedback. How can you know if the huge highway or dam you just built with taxes was the best allocation of resources? You can't. The other problem is that people are not careful with money that isn't theirs. Gave a pricey no-bid contract to your buddies? No problem, you are not personally accountable (in the market, your finances are tied to the decisions you make and hence you are fully accountable).</p>

<p>Anarchy can full well have checks and balances. For instance, you don't like to get robbed so you hire a private defense agency which protects and insures you from theft. If their services are mediocre, you can cancel at anytime rather than keep feeding the bad system unlike a government.</p>

<p>FYI, the credit crisis was due to market speculation about continuously rising housing prices. The prices of houses only rose for so long because of a credit bubble fueled by the Fed's monetary manipulations. By no means is the credit crisis a fault of the market; it stems directly from the government enforcing a monopoly on currency by the Fed.</p>

<p>
[quote]
In an anarchy, these sort of instances would be the way of life because there would be no way to enforce right or wrong.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Those irresponsible investors are not bailed out and the market corrects itself. That is the way to get rid of bad investments. </p>

<p>Just as you buy services and goods, you can buy protection services on the market so right and wrong can be enforced.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Also there wouldn't be a clear cut definition of what right or wrong is because it is ambiguous and relative as it applies to different people.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Again, this argument assumes that cultural and societal norms are irrelevant when a government exists. This is simply not true since you can clearly see that these sorts of oddities are still widespread in certain places with governments (e.g. the middle east).</p>

24

<p>a perfect government is possibly the most unperfect government possible.</p>

25

<p>That government is best which governs least.
--Henry David Thoreau</p>

<p>Go negitive liberties!
Go John Locke, Adam Smith, and Montesquieu!
Go Jeffersonian Federalism!
Three cheers for the Social Contract, the System of Checks and Balances (ftr: not voted upon by the majority; that's mob rule), and the Separation of Powers!</p>

<p>The US Constitution (what it *actually *says) for the win.</p>

<p>The enlightenment excites me...</p>

26

<p>The social contract and negative liberties are mutually exclusive.</p>

<p>Seeing how you quote Thoreau, I'm sure you'll like this website about political philosophy. You cannot do good with that which is inherently coercive.:
Strike</a> The Root - a journal of liberty</p>

<p>I recommend this article in particular:
A</a> Handout for Statists</p>

27

<p>Of course rational thought is implied by majority rule. According to Wikipedia's definition of being rational, "a decision or situation is often called rational if it is in some sense optimal, and individuals or organizations are often called rational if they tend to act somehow optimally in pursuit of their goals." So this would mean that bureaucrats find a common ground in order to find a way to solve problems most efficiently. </p>

<p>In regards to private security and anarchy how would that work? If some private security agency parks a tank on a clients block for instance, the person that paid for the service would feel safe but so would everyone else on that persons block. You think that he would be happy paying for security for a neighborhood, no, which means that that sort of measure would be a waste and would not happen.</p>

<p>In regards to the credit market, how is the government responsible for greedy ,risk-taking, money-worshiping, investment banks make shady loans, only to cash in when they know that poorer people cant make those loan payments. Thats stupidity and irresponsibility, none of which the government is at fault.</p>

<p>Lastly, in response to these oddities your referring what to? Their way of life is different and they choose to live that way. Just because its different shouldn't make it odd. This is same ignorance that begets wars and intolerance.</p>

28

<p>The best form of government is one that is most suitable to the immediate needs of the nation and the people. For instance, the communist party monopoly in China is actually supported by large numbers of its citizens, because it is probably the most pragmatic and expedient approach to solving that country's many problems and needs. And of course, this "perfect" form of government will have to constantly evolve and reform in order to fully meet the needs of society at that relative time period.</p>

29

<p>Sometimes times only one or a few firms can enter a market because of large economies of scale, advertising, and high input prices. These factors lead to natural monopolies and oligopolies. In some instances in the United States, the government promotes monopolies. For instance, they give pharmaceutical companies patents which leads to monopolies over the drug, so the company can cover its costs and also have incentive to make technological advances.</p>

30

<p>@Le Roi Marquis</p>

<p>You missed my point. My point was that if you WERE to assume irrationality, then government is not a solution to this problem since it is full of the same irrational people. I do not believe that people are inherently irrational.</p>

<p>"In regards to private security and anarchy how would that work? If some private security agency parks a tank on a clients block for instance, the person that paid for the service would feel safe but so would everyone else on that persons block. You think that he would be happy paying for security for a neighborhood, no, which means that that sort of measure would be a waste and would not happen."</p>

<p>A tank? Let's just be a little more realistic and say 2 armed guards. The people in his neighborhood would have to be on constant awareness 24/7 to make sure nobody attacks them (since there is no way to seek retribution) and they'd be effectively signing their death warrant or a warrant to be robbed by not getting defense, since YOU and your armed guards could just steal from them (not that you would, but they would have little to do about it like any other risk management situation).</p>

<p>Furthermore, if these people still did not want defense, you still value your life and would place your safety above the free rider paradox and still get defense. Not to mention, governments are not providers of defense. One of the biggest deathtraps are public roads. Rather than admit that the system was a horrible failure, they fund more and more ineffective programs (e.g. drunk driving, driver's ed, speed cameras).</p>

31

<p>bump......</p>

32

<p>Not as long as we're talking about humans governing humans, no.</p>

33

<p>Well we might get a bit closer if we cleaved the government into distinct pieces. For example, there could be a socialist-leaning government to rear and educate children (Family is a form of government, and I see contemporary family as one of the worst) (here specialists as opposed to amateurs would raise the children), a contract system to bind those children to repay the socialist-leaning government when they grow up, and an Internet-forum-intensive economically-and-socially-libertarian-leaning government whose only purpose is to keep order with the adults, and which takes their children and returns them to the jurisdiction of the socialist government unless they don't want to (the point here is to produce so much advantage in giving up your kids that no-one would be silly enough to try to raise them alone).</p>

<p>With regard to norms: Most Norms and Mores shouldn't be legislated. They arise in the natural course of civilizations, but legislating them prevents the government from evolving as well as it could. A good code could be "the burden of legislative argument should lie with those who restrict what people can do". Also, contracts could have near-unlimited power (for capitalism) and the children's government would do well to indoctrinate the kiddies with intelligent politics.</p>

<p>Most of the benefits of communism, and most of the benefits of capitalism, with nepotism and many biases possibly stomped out. Beat that. Good indoctrination could determine the worth of this system.</p>

34

<p>I think total self-government is the best form of government. But this would require every individual to be a rational AND caring person.</p>

35

<p>THERE WILL NEVER BE A PERFECT SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT (ie. 'Perfect' meaning everyone is satisfied with it)</p>

36

<p>The perfect system is communism, as it was meant to be. But alas, it cannot exist.</p>

37

<p>perfect is an opinion so neverrrrrrr!</p>

38

<p>It depends on the meaning of perfect. Pure communism and pure capitalism are both "perfect" systems, but pure communism could never exist because people are inherently self-interested, and pure capitalism could never be viable because eventually society would be completely stratified.</p>

39

<p>government is created by humans - thus, how can it ever be perfect? :D</p>